Article 5 ECHR- Right To Liberty And Security Flashcards
What where the facts of the brogan and others v. Uk case
Mr. Brogan is a farmer who lives in Northern Ireland. He was arrested at his house by police officers under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act
1984. He was then taken to Gough Barracks, Armagh, where he was detained until his release at 5.20 p.m. on 22 September 1984, that is a period of detention of five days and eleven hours. Within a few hours of his arrest, he was questioned about his suspected involvement in an attack on a police mobile patrol. He maintained total silence and refused to answer any questions put to him. There also were a few other people (“others”) who were also arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. They lodged an appeal to ECtHR under Article 5 (Article 5(2), (1), (3) ECHR - right to be informed promptly in a lanaguage you understand, right to liberty unless prescribed by law, brought promptly before the judge
What was teh issue in the brogan and others v uk case?
Does the UK legislation on detention period breach the promptness
requirement under Art 5(3) ECHR?
What rule did the case of brogan and others violate uk establish?
Since Brogan, any initial (pre-trial) detention period over 4 days is NOT
considered to qualify under “promptly”
How did the court define the word ‘promptly’ in the brogan and others vs. Uk case?
Use of French term of “promptness”
narrowed down the broad meaning if the English term. even the shortest
of the four periods of detention, namely the four days and six hours spent
in police custody by Mr McFadden falls outside the strict constraints as to
time permitted by the first part of Article 5 para. 3 (art. 5-3) and therefore,
none of the applicants was either brought “promptly” before a judicial
authority or released “promptly” following his arrest.
What are the facts of the letellier v. France case?
The applicant, in this case, is accused of being an accessory to murder. During the course of the investigation, the applicant is detained for a period of 2 years 9 months before being convicted.
What was the issue in the letellier v. France case?
Does the length of the applicant’s detention on remand constitute a violation of Art 5(3) ECHR, which protects the right to trial within a reasonable time, or to release pending trial?
What rule did the letellier v. France case establish?
2 step-approach:
- What is the relevant time?
-starting point= entry into custody
-ending point= judgement from the criminal court
-> doesnt include any time during which the applicant was no detained - What are the factors to be assessed?
-the means adduced by the national authorities to order the continued detention of the applicant must be relevant and sufficient ( reasonableness)
-the risk of pressure bring brought to bear on the witness
-the danger of absconding
-adequacy of court supervision
-preservation of public order
What does adequacy of court supervision mean
the adequacy of court supervision in criminal law relates to how effectively the court oversees individuals who are under probation, parole, or similar forms of community supervision, with the goal of maintaining public safety, promoting rehabilitation, and ensuring compliance with legal requirements.
What was the conclusion in the letellier v. France case
Conclusion: Therefore there has been no violation of Art 5(3)ECHR.
